Well, it's settled then. Get the 400mm f/4 DO IS! :) I've never owned a 400mm prime, so this is probably out of contect. But I have owned bith the 2.8 (no IS) and 4.0 (both models) 300mm, and all of them were subjectively sharper with a 1.4x than my 100-400mm. But the convenience factor is a big plus, the zoom is nearly 3 inches shorter when collapsed. But the prime is nearly 5 inches shorter than the extended 100-400mm, so there's another point to think about, longer is less stable. Hmm, maybe I was right to begin with, the IS DO version is the best of both worlds. Maybe you should rent both from www.rentglass.com for a week and try them out side by side.
Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Ken Durling > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: EOS 400mm > > Thanks all, for the valuable feedback. I wonder if I'm using > the right term - "softness." I mean something like resolving > power. I shoot a lot of birds, among other things, and I'm > often bringing home shots of large flocks of say Snow Geese, > where you may have a few thousand birds in the view, each > with yellow bills, black wing tips, etc, and I want > absolutely as much clarity as possible on such > features. Similarly with feather detail on closer shots. I'm now > using an FD 400mm f/4.5, sometimes on a 1.4x or 2x extender, > and this is a pretty sharp lens. I want sharper though. And > of course I want AF. > > But the point about IS is well-taken - I'm sure it would make > the difference much of the time. > > > Ken > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
